Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 977301" data-attributes="member: 2486">I'm inclined to be critical of the new ruling, though it does have its advantages.The major advantages is that it does solve the 'Joe Noble' gets raised problem.  Unfortunately, it does not completely solve this.  'Joe Noble' may not be able to be raised; 'Joe Duke' will be able to.  So it merely translates the problem to higher up the wealth table.  Whilst this may sound good, likelihoods are that major plot NPCs are likely to be wealthy enough to afford even the 5000gp raise.  A king ruling one million subjects, who earn an average 1sp/day, and charges a 10% tax rate (pretty gentle...) can afford two raises *per day* (level loss notwithstanding) or a true res every sixty hours.  Of course, his people may have problems with the entire national tax take going to getting him back over and over, but that's not the issue.  A better solution all round is to impose roleplaying restrictions, or alternative preventions of raising- assassins usually carry a scroll of Trap the Soul, or whatever.  Roleplaying restrictions, of course, have the useful addition of being optional applied to PCs.  This is where I have the major problem with the new rule change.  Essentially, when a character dies, the player can do three things.1. Roll up a new character.2. Get the old character raised.3. Tip the table and dice over, storm out of the room, come back to the room, grab his books and dice, storm out again and never return.Now, option 3. is a non-starter.  Aside from the fact that players are hard to come by, it damages the table.  So, the availability of raising dead turns into a tension between options 1. and 2.  Here's my verdict: I prefer option 2.The problem with option 1. is that a character evolves over the course of time.  It builds up experiences, relationships and interactions.  Old friends, old enemies and other long-term character developments are pivotal.  The characters bond as a group.  At low-levels, this is not so problematic.  The exploits of low-level characters are broadly insignificant, and by virtue of not having adventured as long, he has not built up that same NPC network that longer-term, higher-level characters have.Here's the irony: option 2. favours the roleplayers, but the campaign-world paradigm of easy resurrection can damage the verisimilitude.  Option 1.- the 'revolving door PC', I find more objectionable than 'revolving door death'.  I once had a player to whom death was not a problem so long as he got a better character next time round- sometimes, he would willingly *not* return from the dead since he'd be losing a level and some cash.  It's a difficult choice, but I incorporate roleplaying reasons for not being raised, which the PCs can, if they wish, circumvent.  Conversely, raising is relatively easy to be achieved mechanically.  Ultimately, I'm less bothered by the same PC being raised over and over than the same player generating characters again and again.  Easy raising does damage campaign credibility to some extent- but new characters all the time can tear a whole campaign fabric by stymying long-term plots, annuling old friends and enemies, and rendering all that has gone before an obsolete way of pumping up the PC level.</blockquote>

Verification